Stephen King on NBC: Obama Like JFK, People 'Hateful' Toward Both
Appearing on Tuesday's NBC Today, author Stephen King touted his new novel about the Kennedy assassination, "11/22/63," and saw parallels between Kennedy and Barack Obama: "...both men who hadn't had a lot of political experience who vaulted to national prominence, beautiful wives, beautiful children, and also that whole component of people who feel almost hateful toward those people." [Audio available here] [View video after the jump]
Touting his own book on Kennedy on MSNBC's October 31 Hardball, host Chris Matthews condemned the "viciously right-wing" forces in Dallas, Texas that saw JFK as a "traitor" and then seemed to link them to the assassination.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Envy? Not at all
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 4:37pm.
KING: "...both men who hadn't had a lot of political experience who vaulted to national prominence, beautiful wives, beautiful children, and also that whole component of people who feel almost hateful toward those people."
We've known since the 2008 campaign began that the Left saw in Obama a new JFK -- someone to fulfill the assassination-curtailed promise of Camelot.
They are also disappointed, if not disillusioned in Obama because he hasn't delivered on Hope & Change. If anything, he's proven to be a Beltway creature, and his rhetoric rings hollow.
Being True-Believers in the myth they constructed around their candidate, they will never understand that the anger Americans hold for Obama is genuine and indelible. A few posters on NB notwithstanding, we don't hate his wife or his children. We hate what he is doing to our country.
Um.. wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 4:38pm.
Um.. wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald a communist? Being a communist is hardly on the resume of any of those evil Texas conservatives that Matthews wants to smear. If MSNBC was around in the 60s it would probably have offered their 8:00 hour to Oswald.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Lee Harvey Oswald et al
Submitted by Cactus Kurt on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 5:17pm.
The fact is that almost all assassinations (and attempts) have been carried out by communists/liberals/Democrats/left-wingers.
Yes, and after nearly 50 years
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 9:10am.
some still try to make this ostrich fly.
Did he just refer to Michelle
Submitted by ant on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 4:43pm.
Did he just refer to Michelle as a beautiful wife? That's like calling The Shining a romantic-comedy.
ant
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 5:32pm.
Take a look at what King sees in the mirror everyday. When you look at that you have a twisted view of beauty.
anyone ever hearing a Stephen King interview
Submitted by theduck6 on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 8:15am.
and not coming away thinking" there is something not quite right about this person" is either not paying attention (understandable) or is part of the problem.
Ha!!
Submitted by Ozconservative on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 8:21pm.
Didn't he also say Rachel Maddow was "pretty"??? Get that man some new glasses!!
Obviously, he has no idea about female beauty
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 8:23pm.
...which I understand is rather typical of "down-low".
Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about....it's rather fascinating.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
they say it all the time
Submitted by jimtrees on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 8:52pm.
I just don't see it. There is not an ounce of beauty in her at all. Any angle you look at her, she is pure ugly.
Michelle Obama is not ugly,
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 3:38am.
Michelle Obama is not ugly, nor is she beautiful. She might even be what they used to refer to as a "handsome" woman. She has a hard look about her, and she always looks pi$$ed off. Combing her hair back accentuates the harshness. Maybe it's because her body is toned, she's not fat, and can pull off wearing sleeveless blouses, that they keep talking about her beauty. Who knows?
Regarding looks in general, like everything else in the liberal worldview, the bar must be lowered for all things pertaining to Blacks. It seems for the liberal crowd, that any Black woman who isn't downright ugly, must therefore be "beautiful". I always thought that was indicative of their subtle patronizing racism. Indeed, there are many extremely attractive women of color. Sorry to say, Michelle isn't one of them.
'She's not fat'???
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 4:23am.
'She's not fat'??? Ok...........let's rephrase that - she's as big as a house!!! Her damn okole (Hawaiian for rear end) requires 3 fulltime security people to guard it's shadow!!! And the 'pissed off' look??? VERY indictative of her mindset!!! Plus, lately she has been thrown out on the campaign trail, complete with teleprompter.............and she is spouting off some absolutely incredible things!!! This 'baby got back' is angry, uptight, and dangerous................and combined with her skinny little Type C Barry Boy,they are the most dangerous combination to ever foist their agenda on the USA in history - even MORE dangerous than der Schlickmeister and Nurse Ratchet...........who is another physical specimen unto herself!!!!
I meant New Orleans "Ahm
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 11:56am.
I meant New Orleans "Ahm waitin' for the gubmit to help me fat", or Oprah fat, before a diet company pays her to be a spokesman. I guess I'm guilty of making some middle-aged allowances.
Self-important, common celebrity jerk.
Submitted by KyWriter on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 4:47pm.
Backed up by Chris Matthews, who wouldn't recognize history if it bit him on his urine-soaked leg.
Ugh...
Submitted by Darks Shadow Show on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 4:53pm.
King's idiocy and disdain for the right are why I have never bothered to read his books. I don't care how good some of them might be. Also, a lot of them sound rather silly.
"and also that whole
Submitted by tcm14 on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 4:54pm.
"and also that whole component of people who feel almost hateful toward those people."
Every politician who has ever lived has had a component of people that hated them. King knows this, he is front and center in hate towards politicians he disagrees with.
I guess Chrissy meant the
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 5:52pm.
I guess Chrissy meant the vicious democrat (rightwing) forces in Texas, cause there weren't any significant repub population at the time. But Chrissy seems to have missed his history lesson that Kennedy wasn't killed by rightwingers, but by a leftie commie symp Castroite. Another "inconvenient truth missed by this talk show host.
I guess Chrissy also missed the years 2000-2008, when George W. Bush was the most vilified man in the USA by the left (academics, unions, newsmedia, democrats). If Obama had to withstand a ten thousandth of the vile bile directed at W, he would crawl into a fetal position and die. Let us play the world's smallest violin for how Mr. Obama has been treated by his friends and allies in the media.
History lesson
Submitted by Ozconservative on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 8:28pm.
You gotta remember Chrissy learned all he needed to know about the Kennedy assassination from that authoratative historical work "JFK" by Oliver Stone.
Is he nuts?
Submitted by chazzy-kc on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 6:05pm.
No political experience? Obama ....true...served in senate for 1 year before deciding he was fit to be the worst president in US History.
Kennedy....three terms as as US representative representing Massachusetts 11th congressional district (6 years) and twice elected to the US Senate.....
Can you make up any more parallels Mr King .......what a doofus!
If I may add, Kennedy's time
Submitted by Bhaal on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 11:05am.
If I may add, Kennedy's time in the Navy as a PT boat commander. It counts in my book anyway.
Rightwingers in 1960 Texas?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 7:18pm.
The Republican Party back then was dominated by the Eastern Establishment Republicans such as Nelson Rockefeller, a Liberal from our perspective. The people JFK had to worry about was his Southern democrats. JFK and the Texan, Lyndon Johnson, were not amigos. The pairing was strictly for politics. After the assassination of JFK Jackie O suspicioned that Johnson was somehow involved.
Former self admitted coke
Submitted by celator on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 7:54pm.
Former self admitted coke user and pothead King once again shares his entire philosophy of life and politics: Everyone is a boogeyman out to get us saintly liberals. They're monsters, I tell ya!
He's as pathetic now as when he was a drunk undergraduate at the U of Maine, when they had to call the campus cops to scrape his drunk carcass of off the floor of Pat's Pizza three times a week and haul him back to his dorm room.
Really? Hmm...
Submitted by CorkyNM on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 8:11pm.
I guess I've read my last S. King novel. Sad really.
Pitiful...
Submitted by Aubrey on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 8:23pm.
Ann Curry sounded like she was having an Orgasm.
Obama is like JFK
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 8:28pm.
Obama is like JFK in the sense that he is inexperienced, incompetent, illinformed and illequipped to handle the job of being president.
The difference is that JFK was not out to destroy America but Obama is doing everything to destroy us and bring us into the 6th century under sharia law.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
cocodrie...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 8:56pm.
JFK was neither inexperienced nor incompetent or ill-equipped for the job. He was inadequately informed and poorly advised at times, particularly during the early stages of his presidency.
Jer
Hhmm
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 9:04pm.
He was inadequately informed and poorly advised at times,
Who's fault is that? Does he not appoint his own advisers?
Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 9:54pm.
He was poorly advised at times by those within his administration whom he had appointed and also by some who were outside of his administration or were holdovers from prior ones. But, I'm not absolving JFK of all responsibility for any missteps. There were policy blunders for which he should be held accountable. However, I do take issue with the implication that he was unequipped, unprepared, incompetent, etc.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 10:48pm.
How about that JFK was drugged up?
Rad...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 11:25pm.
True...mostly related to Addison's Disease and the effects of injuries sustained in WWII. It's yet another example of the changing media environment over the years--from enablers to adversaries.
Jer
As far as being the POTUS, he was, Jer.
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 9:04pm.
No one enters the office experienced and competent. It's how they do their jobs that determines whether they're viewed as competent and/or experienced.
The jury seems to still be in deliberations on whether JFK was any good at the job. He was inadequately informed, mostly by RFK and McNamara. But, he apparently never sought other counsel.
I would posit that JFK was more interested in what the job could get him, than what he could do for the job. Hey, that might make a good speech.
Obviously, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 10:10pm.
One doesn't enter the office with experience, and on-the-job competency is something that will be assessed at a later time--most appropriately by the judgment of history well after the term in office has been completed.
JFK was well-known for seeking the advice from a wide variety of sources--in and out of his administration, regardless of party and ideology.
What do believe he "was more interested in what the job could get him"? A cool pick-up line?
Jer
Could Be...
Submitted by IrateNate on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 10:14pm.
Whatever he used sure worked on Marilyn...
Good evening Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 9:42pm.
JFK was all that and more. His only qualification was the influence of his crooked father.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good evening cocodrie...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 9:55pm.
That's unadulterated nonsense.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 10:14pm.
His father made his fortune smuggling booze and the media made JFK a hero because he succeeded in getting his boat sunk and almost losing his crew.
JFK was in way over his head.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
cocodrie...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 10:43pm.
Maybe you should read the objective accounts of JFK's WWII record in the Pacific--including the reminiscences of his crew. And, while Joe Kennedy may have been unscrupulous in many of his financial dealings, he did not make his fortune "smuggling booze".
Jer
Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 11:21pm.
the old man was partners oith the mob and ran booze. he was most certainly a crook in that and also in his "legitimate" business dealings.
JFK was in combat for 2 months with the 109 ane then gor himself run over by a Japanese destroyer. Not a very diligent commander i would say.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
cocodrie...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 12:26am.
Kennedy's skill and command decisions leading up to the destruction of PT-109 are topics of legitimate debate--hell, "Bull" Halsey (a bona fide hero of WWII) exhibited monumentally poor judgment at the battle of Leyte Gulf and later twice led his fleet directly into the paths of killer typhoons which resulted in a number of sunken warships and a substantial loss of life--but JFK's courageous actions in the aftermath of the collision with the Japanese destroyer are undeniable.
And his pre-presidential resume` was far more impressive than that of numerous candidates, including many who were elected and served as POTUS.
Jer
Having read several accounts,
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 1:23am.
I've drawn the conclusion that everyone on the 109 was asleep when the Japanese destroyer turned it into kindling. From the accounts I've read, the destroyer was bearing down for at least a couple of minutes, on a calm sea, with visibility that was optimum for night ops, yet no one saw it?
And, no one is discussing Halsey, we're discussing JFK.
And, I'll grant that what happened afterward was, indeed, above and beyond. But, they wouldn't have been in the position they were in, if a lookout had been posted, and if posted, an officer had made sure he, the lookout, was awake.
UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 2:55am.
cocodrie is the one who chose to bring up Kennedy's WWII record as if it were somehow evidence of his being an incompetent boob who had absolutely no business being president. It is a crock of shit. I mentioned Halsey merely to illustrate the ease with which the historical perspective can be manipulated by focusing only on the negative aspects of one's career. Even if Kennedy could justifiably be faulted for the loss of PT-109--and that is a highly debatable proposition--his subsequent actions revealed a capacity for courage and for leadership sufficient to redeem any possible prior lapses in judgment. And raising the issue as a means to delegitimize Kennedy's qualifications for the presidency is unfair and absurd.
Jer
Technically JFK Should Have Faced Court Marshal.
Submitted by Avitar on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 3:28am.
It was only because of political factors that violating regulations and sitting in a water way with his diesel engines off did not get him dishonorably discharged.
The Kennedy bottle Rocket Space Program has also always made me angry. Before Kennedy there was a space program of which the X-15 and the technology of the SR-71 "Black Bird were a part. But that involved building rue shuttle and a space station (Remember the wheel from "2001?") But that Space program was Air Force and landing was scheduled for July 1976, too late for Kennedy to take all the credit but leaving infrastructure in place to go back there again and again.
The Kennedy/NASA moon landing schedule would have put men on the moon before the end of Kennedy's second term in office except Kennedy was assassinated and the first NASA designed Space Capsule, Apollo 1, burned up on the pad before launch.
I admire Kennedy as the best economist the Democrats have had since the Civil War but he had his flaws along with his bimbos on staff.
Avitar...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 3:57pm.
Please review the sources I linked for UpNorth below, which make mincemeat out of your PT-109 argument.
As far as your anger over Kennedy and the Space Program, I must say I had always thought that was ONE area where those of every political and ideological stripe could find common ground in crediting JFK. Apparently, I was wrong.
I also recommend that you re-examine the historical roots of our lunar missions--beginning in the Eisenhower administration--and particularly the effect and impact of the Soviet manned space flights with regard to the direction of our program.
Jer
Unless you've found orders I can't find,
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 11:26am.
I still fail to see why a PT boat, destroyer, submarine, cruiser, aircraft carrier, or battleship would be lying dead in the water, not under power, in a shipping channel, in a war zone. I don't find that to be a matter of a "highly debatable proposition" at all. It reeks of incompetence, or at the very least, a total lack of situational awareness.
UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 2:55pm.
Do you believe, as does cocodrie [presumably], the PT-109 incident in WWII reflects badly on Kennedy's qualifications for the presidency. If so, we can continue to rehash the matter. If not, what's the point?
Jer
By the way, UpNorth, maybe reading
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 3:41pm.
the after action reports held by the National Archives, and the account of John Hersey--who interviewed Kennedy and several crew members--which is now available for inspection, will help resolve some of your specific concerns and provide you with a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the loss of PT-109. Hint: They blow your version of events right out of the water.
Jer
Your posts, Jer,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 8:58pm.
when defending any Democrat or lib, always contend that any info given or links provided by you, absolutely obliterate any arguments contrary to yours.
While such contention is unadulterated bull, so long as doing so make you happy - sail on, mariner.
MD
Well, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 9:03pm.
Not always...but I thought "blows out of the water" was a nice metaphorical touch, considering the subject-matter. Don't you agree? :-)
Jer
I will amend 'always', Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 9:13pm.
to 'generally ', provided you avoid getting out of your depth --- charge it to my good nature. :o)
MD
Ooh..you're foundering, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 9:18pm.
But a worthy rejoinder, sir.
Jer
Personally, I would have gone with "Torpedoed your argument",
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 9:08pm.
but, that's just me.
Outstanding.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 9:39pm.
Jer
And yet, if the crews of two ships
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 9:17pm.
were awake, as contended, the Japanese saw the PT boat, far smaller than a destroyer, long before the PT crew saw the Japanese destroyer, a large bow wave more than likely created by the speed of the destroyer, bearing down on them? Must have been some really remarkable camouflage on that destroyer.
I don't have any "specific concerns", Jer. Just general nit-picking at conventional wisdom.
As for the after-action reports, John F'ing Kerry wrote his AA reports, too. And he still wasn't in Cambodia.
As I read the reports...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/10/2011 - 9:47pm.
(A) and (B) were compiled from accounts provided by personnel other than the crew of Kennedy's boat, while (C)--unsurprisingly, the most detailed account--was the product of interviews with the survivors of PT-109.
Jer
Poor Choice, Indeed
Submitted by IrateNate on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 10:13pm.
Yeah, that whole 'convertable' thing didn't pan out too well.
WTF?
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 10:12pm.
I don't know what Mr. King is talking about. JFK is the only Democrat I ever cared for.
And he's wrong about "hating" Obama. I despise the man.
BTW, the latest theory about the "Immaculate Deception" is that Obama's maternal grandfather is really his father.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_case_against_barack_obama_sr....
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Cliff Notes for King's "11/22/63"
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 12:29am.
Save your bucks, gang. Here's the plot to King's new spookum novel:
A young President is assassinated in Dallas, Texas and his ghost haunts the country for the next 50 years. The End.
Haha
Submitted by ant on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 12:45am.
A book about Obama would be just as creepy,- an empty suit comes to life to haunt a golf course while leading an army of blood-sucking, zombie bureaucrats to destroy the country-side.
JFK wouldn't even last through the first round of primaries...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 1:22am.
...in today's Democrat Party.
And Obama can't hold a candle to JFK. Yes, even as a conservative, I can admire the things JFK did.
JFK was patriotic, was all about American Exceptionalism, certainly had no affection for socialism, nor admiration for communist thugs, and helped start a space program that would reach for -and land on- the moon.
Obama thinks America is just another country, likes to dabble in socialism, has a freaking Mao Christmas ornament, and thinks the space program should reach...out to Muslims.
What a godawful joke of a president Obama is.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Almost Hated? Dude Oswall Killed John Kennedy For Being The 1%
Submitted by Avitar on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 2:58am.
Oswald was socially very similar to Obama's maternal family and had Oswald had any kids they and little Berry Obama could have attended the same liberal schools for red diaper babies.
But Lee Harvey Oswald got the class warfare started early by shooting a 1% President. Remember that even Ronald Reagan was a John Kennedy Democrat. It was only after all of the other senior Kennedys were dead that Ted Kennedy dragged the name so far to the left that it aligned with Pol Pot.
If instead of defecting to Russia after being a marine stationed in Japan if Lee Harvey Oswald had gone to Hawaii could we today have a President Oswald? Welcome to my nightmare Steven King, I prefer your nightmares since they aren't real.
Imagine the horror that Joe McCarthy faced knowing because of the Venona intercepts that the Communist infiltration was completely real and being completely blocked from doing anything about it as the country he loved slowly was toren apart?
Steven King could never match that.